Veterans Teaching Peace in Schools (VTPS) |
|
VTPS was created on October 31, 2001 in direct response to President George W. Bush's request for veterans to speak in schools from November 11, 2001 to November 17, 2001. Of course, Mr. Bush intended the veterans to speak from a pro-war stance, but the veterans of VTPS offer to speak from a pro-peace stance. VTPS seeks both veterans willing to speak, and non-veterans willing to coordinate opportunities for veterans to speak. To volunteer as either a speaker or coordinator send an e-mail to James Madison. As of 11/11/01, VTPS has 68 veterans and 55 coordinators operating in 29 states. Because of the success of our efforts, we plan to continue operations well beyond the originally scheduled dates of 11/11/01 to 11/17/01.
Comments from our veterans:
Talking Points:Members of VTPS have one thing in common: a strong belief that there are better approaches to foreign policy than engaging in never-ending militarism. Beyond that, different members may offer somewhat different approaches to the issues. Below are a number of points on which most members agree, some more strongly than others, and which can be expected to be addressed when a representative from VTPS speaks to a student group. Our foreign policy has been one of unrelenting militarism. U.S. foreign policy is not one of peaceful innocence suddenly shattered by the events of 9/11/01. Our nation has been engaging in and supporting hostile military actions around the globe for over half a century. These include: Arming Israel in its wars with various Arab countries. Bombing and invading Iraq. Bombing Kosovo--including the Chinese embassy. Bombing Sudan--and not apologizing when it turned out to be an aspirin factory. Backing various civil wars in Central America. Putting Castro in power. Putting Saddam Hussein in power. Arming Bin Laden. Note that with the last three, not only were we at the heart of the military action, but we created our own enemy. You watch: if we help the Northern Alliance overthrow the Taliban, a few years from now you will hear about how the Northern Alliance has turned against the U.S. and is using our arms and training against us. Global militarism breeds hostility against us. The natural consequence of all this violence by our government is a strongly felt hostility on the part of those who have been our victims. The people in the nations we bomb, invade, and occupy are just like you: they love their friends and families, and hate anyone who brings harm to those they love. How would you feel if Canada bombed your home town, killing those you love? The same holds for those in other countries that have been attacked by the U.S. or the nations it supports. But don't they hate us for our freedom and democracy? The nation of Afghanistan has a literacy rate of roughly 15%--they can't even read the morning paper! How likely is it that they converse about such abstract notions as freedom and democracy and then develop a contempt for us as a result? Isn't it far more likely that they hate us because of the hostile, violent acts they have seen perpetrated and supported by the U.S. over the decades. Bombs, guns, and occupying forces are something anyone can comprehend, and are far more likely to anger people to the point of committing murder than are intangible concepts. Bad foreign policy does not justify the WTC attacks. Let's be clear, despite our half-century of initiating military hostilities, there is NO justification for what happened on 9/11/01. Our militaristic foreign policy in no way justifies killing innocent American civilians. We are not saying that. However, it is a logical consequence of our actions. The simple reality is that hate and hostility breeds even more hate and hostility, and if we want it to stop, we must be the one to stop it because we are the ones who have been doing it for decades. It's not "us vs. them", there is a third choice. Shortly after this mess began, Bush said people are "either with us, or with the terrorists." This is a false choice. Some try to put peace activists in the same group as the terrorists when they hear us criticize military action. In fact, there is a third choice, and we who love peace are taking the third choice: we do not support the U.S. policy of militarism, past or present, and we do not support the violent actions of the terrorists. Our third choice is that both sides are wrong, both sides must stop the violence, but since we started it, we must be the first to stop. Diplomacy and negotiation should precede military action: Negotiation is an integral part of Arab culture--go to an Arab country; you won't find a price tag anywhere, they barter for everything. The Taliban wasn't just stalling for time when they said they wanted to talk--they were expressing an approach to problem solving that was integral to their culture. By moving directly to force, the administration showed its complete lack of understanding of the Arab culture, and missed its single best opportunity to successfully and quickly resolve this issue. Even if military force is justified, it should have been used only as a last resort, when all other means had been exhausted. Our militaristic foreign policy is unconstitutional. Our Constitution clearly states in Article I, Section 8 that only Congress has the power to declare war. The Congress has not declared war since WWII, therefore all of our military actions of the past half century have been a violation of the Constitution. Do not be fooled by someone saying war is authorized by the War Powers Act. The WPA itself is also unconstitutional. The founders of this country intended it to be quite difficult to go to war for a reason--because it breeds hostility that comes back to haunt us. Since WWII, our government has side-stepped this constitutional barrier, and we are now suffering the consequences. Opposing this war is very patriotic. A real patriot does not just wave the flag. A truly patriotic person supports the Constitution. In fact, veterans swore upon entering the service to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States." Because the military actions of the past half century and today are not declared wars, a true patriot must oppose them. If George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were alive today and saw the intense militarism of our foreign policy, they would be disgusted. The WTC attack was a crime, so respond with justice, not war. A war is an act perpetrated by a government, a crime is an act perpetrated by an individual or a group of individuals. This was not a war. It was a crime committed by a small group of highly motivated individuals. As such the administration should immediately present its evidence to the world, and seek a resolution in court. Because the crime crosses borders, it should be done in a world court in a neutral country. Isn't Bin Laden just a psychotic extremist? If you listen to the media and our government, you would think Bin Laden is an evil lunatic. Perhaps, but let's pause for a minute and consider his three main demands. 1) Stop bombing Iraq. We still bomb Iraq so routinely that it doesn't even make the evening news. 2) Get U.S. troops out of Saudi Arabia. Arabs consider it their holy land, and don't want foreign troops there. 3) Stop arming Israel and taking sides in that conflict. Are those so unreasonable? Are those situations really America's concern anyway? Most importantly, consider this: if we obey our own Constitution and end all unconstitutional military actions, what will we have to do? Exactly those three things! Not because Bin Laden says so, but because our own Constitution says so! What about the 90+% support in the polls? Most Americans say they support the war because they can't think of any alternative. They see two choices: 1) fight back and hope it stops, or 2) don't fight back and keep having attacks. Very few see the third choice: 3) stop our military hostilities so they won't have a reason to attack us. Most of that 90% want a solution. The want a real solution that will create a lasting peace. But they just don't see the third choice. As more and more of us promote that third choice, and more people come to understand it, that 90% will go down. Isn't the recent surge in military recruitment a sign of support? To find the truth here, consider this reality check by Mark Shields of CNN's Capital Gang (11/3/01), "In the days following the September 11 massacre of civilians, the airwaves and the newspapers repeatedly told us of military recruitment centers filled with young Americans eager and ready to join the Army, the Navy, Air Force and the Marine Corps. Not for the first time, the press had it wrong. In fact, with the nation under attack and the country's economy in recession, fewer Americans volunteered to join the United States military in September of 2001 than did one year earlier in September 2000." Enough said. Afghanistan defeats Empires. If the moral, constitutional, and diplomatic concerns don't persuade you, perhaps this cold, hard reality will appeal to your self-interest: Afghanistan doesn't lose wars. They beat Alexander the Great. They beat Genghis Khan. They beat the British--three times! They beat the Soviets. And now we're going in, somehow thinking we're going to do better. The all-volunteer military has never been tested. Another practical concern: our military is all volunteer. Our all-volunteer military has never gone through a long, painful war. During Vietnam there was a draft. The only real conflict since then was Desert Storm, and that was a quick, clean war (at least from our perspective) fought mostly by machines. What will happen to the all-volunteer military if this war drags out and our troops start dying in the caves and winding mountains of Afghanistan? Suddenly all that college money won't look so appealing. The non-talking points. Trade, immigration, travel, treaties, UN participation, and many other issues pertain to our interaction with other cultures and governments. Naturally, members of VTPS are free to address all these issues--and, of course, all international issues will intermix to some extent, but we hope to generally avoid them and stick to issues of war and the prevention thereof. The reason is that while peace activists are united in their opposition to war, they can take varying stands on other international issues. As a result, we would like to leave those other issues for another time and focus primarily on ending warfare first. Once we get enough people to agree to stop the hostility, then we can discuss the best means of addressing other issues.
|